Jump to content

Please consider disabling your adblocker for CreditBoards if you have not already done so.  This site depends on advertising revenue to stay online.


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. Which is fine... as long as they let whomever buys the account that it's been disputed. Otherwise they would be in violation of that section of the FDCPA.
  2. Medical or not... it would be false and misleading if they then make any other attempt to collect. -R
  3. Yep. They do it all the time. They are not required to notify a consumer prior to adding a tradeline to someone's report. Choices are to either wait, or be proactive and force them to get the ball rolling. -R really? because I had something similar happen to me (tho I wasn't mortgage shopping, or applying for mortgage) I simply wrote the Cra in question that "Never received initial communication from CA" and the Cra promptly deleted it, pretty quickly too. There is no legal requirement for anyone to notify a consumer prior to adding something to a consumers report. Your dispute could have reached a consumer friendly CSR at the CRA... or a million other possibilities. -R
  4. I did not read anything other then what was posted here - but wouldn't it have been better to go after the party that did the pull, if they did not have PP? (Just a question in general - maybe not specific to this case) I see that along the same lines as FoI that report incorrectly. A consumer disputes... tries to get them to correct their tradeline, but if they fail to do so, you go after them, not the CRA. -R
  5. Yep. They do it all the time. They are not required to notify a consumer prior to adding a tradeline to someone's report. Choices are to either wait, or be proactive and force them to get the ball rolling. -R
  6. Not a letter I would send.... That being said... there is no requirement for them to produce docs within 30 days... Making such a claim screams an uneducated consumer and someone who just cut and paste something they found on the 'web.
  7. If the debt is paid and not owed any longer, arrow is not required to answer a DV. If you look at the opening section of the FDCPA, it states they govern the COLLECTION of debts.... once the debt is paid, much of it no longer applies. You'll either have to attack the tradeline, or see if you have any state laws you can use. -R
  8. You need a 7% bump... and I have no idea how Kroll or whomever comes up with their figures..... but this is what I would do. And I would work on these hard... working up the chain to the top of the company via phone and/or letters. Call and write to everyone... Try to get them to do a pay-for-delete. Since it's a local agency, they might be willing. Agreed... do a dispute using the TFC. Make sure in these disputes you state that you want them deleted if the fail to make the 30 days. If you don't tell them what outcome you want, they won't just guess and delete them. When you spoke with the gas company, did you ask them to pull the account back from the CA??? If not, call them back and see if they will. If they tell you they will, then I might do a TFC with the CA, as well as a general dispute with the CRA. That will give you 3 chances to get it off.... TFC... Check the medical forum and dispute using whychats method. That's how I would do it.... who knows.. if you get one or two to drop off, maybe that would give you the 7%. I dunno... -R
  9. The 1-2 punch works around the ideal that A) the CA is reporting and your DV is timely. So... Are they reporting? And when did you get dunned by them?? -R
  10. If in fact CA#2 was hired by CA#1 (or the same company) to collect on the debt, they, IMO, would both be in violation. Or at least I would claim them both. CA#2 has the obligation to tell CA#1 that you disputed the debt with them. If CA#1 is again trying to collect, then CA#2 failed to inform them. Violation. If CA#2 did in fact tell CA#1 you disputed the debt, then CA#1 is in violation for continued collection efforts on a disputed debt. Violation. It's kindof a catch 22.... for them. That's how I would go about it...
  11. That may be true - the 2 yr. sol - but because the OP is dealing with a job situation, it might be in their best interest to pay. If they had several months to deal with everyting then yeah.... but that probably isn't the case here. I'd just try to do everything possible to pass the BG/CR check and get the job. Worry about the rest later.
  12. It would work much better if you put this whole thing in your own words and, IMO, shorten it up. If the CA no longer holds the account, sending them a DV is pointless. There is no legal basis for that.... so any OC would be foolish to agree to it. Since OC's are not bound by the FDCPA, stating that they are just makes a consumer look like they have no idea what they are talking about and that the consumer just sent a cut-and-paste copy of something they found on the interweb and won't be taken seriously. -R
  13. RacerX780


    Yes. It's a violation. And probably unethical. Is it a dunning letter?? With the 30 day notice?? Unreal. Drop my name if you talk to them... maybe they'll send me a letter too.
  14. There has to be a reason for some people getting hammered for ID docs.... and then others not. And I'll be the first to admit there is not rhyme or reason for much of what the CRAs do.... but every now and then there are reasons for their actions. I'm just trying to rack my brain to figure out what the reasons for this might be.

About Us

Since 2003, creditboards.com has helped thousands of people repair their credit, force abusive collection agents to follow the law, ensure proper reporting by credit reporting agencies, and provided financial education to help avoid the pitfalls that can lead to negative tradelines.
  • Create New...

Important Information